[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [papyrus-rt-dev] "Draft" modelling [Was: Re: Integration of the rts model library in the core]
|
Thanks Peter, that is a very interesting and thoughtful explanation!
I have added some comments inline below.
Hi,
Good comments/question/doubts, Ernesto! I think it is good if we all get an understanding of where UML-RT can be used outside its ordinary context. I try comment a bit inline below...
/Peter Cigéhn
<cr> I agree about the misconception you indicate, and I’ve probably been one of the people propagating it, simply because it was the OTL/Rational/IBM party line. And I have to acknowledge that Ericsson has been very innovative in their approach to the use of UML-RT, which is commendable to advance the state of the art and that has always made working with Ericsson very interesting and enjoyable.
However, I have to mention, and this takes nothing out of your statements, that many of these things (except for protocols and communication mechanisms, which are way better in UML-RT), SysML provides many of the same capabilities, although with an undeniable increase in complexity and also in what can be modeled and specified.
</cr>
I really like those categories. Perhaps we should consider making those into official setup profiles for Papyrus-RT (in a release subsequent to 1.0). They would need a bit of work to properly define their content, but the concepts are interesting. Would you be agreeable to working together on this with the goal of presenting it to the Papyrus IC Product Management and Architecture Committees?
There is also a need to better define some terms such as simulation (e.g., UML-RT “VM" vs, code gen and execution), transformation vs. code gen (model-to-model vs model to text?). And then there’s the whole issue of synchronization between the three types of models representing a single system.
Knowing you, you might already have done some (most?) of this, but what do you think?
Agreed. In your opinion, would the sequence diagrams be generated from a running model (simulation or execution), extrapolated from the category 2 model (which would be an interesting research exercise), or hand created?
I can see the problems there. I would be very interested in looking at this. I’ll have to ask Bran about. Thanks for pointing it out.
Agreed. UML-RT (similarly to SysML) is a superset of a subset of UML.
Again, full agreement. Protocols are much easier and often more useful than their UML (and SysML) alternatives! And when we get busses, will be closer to parity with electrical modeling tools in terms of functionality and legibility.
_______________________________________________ papyrus-rt-dev mailing list papyrus-rt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxTo change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/papyrus-rt-dev
|
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail